As of this week, a new father in Finland may take 54 days of paid leave to spend with his child. In Australia, a similar law gives new Dads two weeks off to bond.

These are but the two newest countries to provide paternity leave, with pay. All over the world — in places as diverse as Sweden (480 days; yes you read that right), Germany (365), Italy (90), Kenya (14), Switzerland (3) and Indonesia (2) — legislators have realized that time with a child, without worry over a lost paycheck, is a right, not a frill.

And in the US?

You know the answer to that.

As Zach Rosenberg has been highlighting on 8BitDad, companies aren’t required to offer paternity leave here. That is hardly surprising because while other countries are expanding their policies to include Dads, we are essentially the last place on the planet that hasn’t even embraced the narrower idea of leave for mothers. There are only three countries like this — Papua New Guinea, Swaziland… and the one that prides itself on being the leader of the world.

True, a few states — California and New Jersey to be exact — have their own laws, allowing five or six weeks at rates of pay that range from $250 a week to 66 percent of the employee’s salary. But most do so under the Family and Medical Leave Act which allows up to 12 weeks of leave at no pay.

I have long marveled that there is no outcry over this. No grass roots demand. A steady hum of periodic studies and op-ed pieces, yes, but mostly an assumption that this isn’t the way things work around here.

The rest of the world is puzzled too. During a conversation I had with the Danish Minister for Gender Equality recently (a father, by the way, named Manu Sareen) he wondered why Americans, who are such big proponents of rights and freedoms, don’t see this as either of those things. He explained to me how the laws in Denmark differ from those in the U.S. There, mothers get four weeks of paid leave before giving birth, and 14 weeks afterward. Danish fathers get two paid weeks off, and both parents have the right to an additional 32 weeks of leave during the first nine years of a child’s life. In his country, this is seen as “a social good and civil right. ”

“We see equal society as equivalent to a sustainable society,” he said, “so that’s why we keep working on it.” Rather than simply a matter of individual child care, which is how it has long been portrayed here, parental leave anchors the family and the economy, he explained: “It is very very effective because it gives a closer relationship between the man and the child and it actually reduces the chance of divorce later, and it also give the woman a better chance for having a career.”

Why then has it been a non-starter for decades here in the US? And how to reverse that?

I have a suggestion. Since a primary objection to a national paid leave policy is essentially “why should I support someone else’s decision to have a child?” then let’s leap-frog past everyone else in the world and stop talking about parental leave completely. What we should be debating, instead, is paid Family Leave.

Because all of us have a family. And odds are that family will need us — our elderly parent, our ailing sibling, or incapacitated spouse — at some point in our lives. Adding a period of paid (or partially paid) time to the menu of accepted workplace benefits, eliminates the more picayune squabbles we’ve been having on the subject.

“Why doesn’t my elderly mother count as much as your new baby?” She does. “Why must those of us who choose not to have children be less entitled to leave than those who do?” They mustn’t. “Why should mothers get months of leave while father only weeks?” They shouldn’t. Give all of us a bucket o’ time and let us divide it in accordance with our needs — and pay for it as we currently do for things like disability and unemployment.

There are workplace and public policies that plan for time off and income replacement in case of illness or injury. There are 401Ks and social security for when you retire and can no longer work. Why isn’t there a coordinated, uniform workplace and public policy that offers time off and at least partial income replacement when people, inevitably, have babies or an aging parent needs care? Why?

Comments

Reblogged this on Joanne Tosti-Vasey Blogging for Equality and commented:
The Washington State Economic Opportunity Institute is absolutely correct. The United States of America needs to join much of the rest of the world and create paid family leave for all employees – both men and women. The current, unpaid family and medical leave guaranteed under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act for employees who work essentially full-time for a minimum of one year for companies with 50 or more employees.
The current system in the US when you have a family medical emergency or the birth or adoption of a child. It’s Unpaid. For full-time employees only. And only if you work for a large-size company.
For the majority of working people, this is either unworkable (you live pay-check to paycheck and have no backup income if you take unpaid leave) and or is unavailable.
We need to have full income protection for all employees, not just the 11 percent of private sector workers and the 17 percent of public sector workers in the US who do get paid leave (http://wiw.motherscenter.org/paid-leave-is-godd-for-the-economy/).
Let your Congressional delegation know that you want paid medical leave legislation introduced and enacted into law. This law should provide at least partial income replacement when you need time off from work to take care of a child, spouse, or other family member throughout the lifespan.